2017 (4) TMI 886

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... judicating authority for verification of the documents. As regard the modvat credit of 16,72,886.00, the duty paying characteristic is established, receipt of input Is not under dispute and entire co-relation is established right from duty payment of the goods and receipt of the same goods in the factory of the appellant - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - part matter decided in favor of assessee and part matter on remand.
Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri. Vipin Jain, Advocate with Shri. Vishal Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Ajay Kumar, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Order The issue involved in the present is that: (a)Authorities below denied the modvat credit of ₹ 6,75,658/- for wanting of origin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty payment particulars are mentioned. He further referred to the certificate issued by the manufacturer M/s. Recron Synthetics Limited wherein it was certified that inputs related to the credit of ₹ 16,72,886.00 goods were supplied to the appellant from Reliance Industries Limited, Surat. He also referred to the general ledger of the appellant wherein payment particulars in respect of same transaction is appearing. He submits that with this chain of documents, this clearly establish that duty paid inputs were purchased by the appellant and there is direct evidence of duty paying documents in respect of the goods purchased by them, therefore there is no reason for denial of credit. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Ajay Kumar, Ld. Joint .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uthority who after verifying the genuineness of such document may decide the matter with respect to this amount afresh. From the above findings, it is clear that Ld. Commissioner has observed that though the appellant have submitted documents under the cover of letter dated 1-6-2001 but appellant could not produce copy of the said letter before the Commissioner(Appeals) therefore Commissioner (Appeals) has directed to the original adjudicating authority to decide the matter after verifying the original documents. Since the original documents was not before the Ld. Commissioner(appeals) and proof of submission of documents before adjudicating authority was not produced by the appellant to the Commissioner(appeals). In my considered view Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X